xen discuss - Apr 2009 - Has anyone tried installing Mac OS 10.5 into an vXM machine?

I''m curious:  as the subject says, I''d like to install MacOS
10.5 as a
virtual host. Has anyone tried this? Any pointers to gotchas?  Seems 
like an Utra24 would be really nice for this...

-- 
Erik Trimble
Java System Support
Mailstop:  usca22-123
Phone:  x17195
Santa Clara, CA
Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800)

You mean besides that installing MacOS on non-apple hardware is against 
the Service License Agreement?

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx.html

Section 2A
"This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple 
Software on a single *Apple-labeled computer* at a time."


Erik Trimble wrote:
> I''m curious:  as the subject says, I''d like to install
MacOS 10.5 as a
> virtual host. Has anyone tried this? Any pointers to gotchas?  Seems 
> like an Utra24 would be really nice for this...
>

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:32:03PM -0400, Andrew Chester
wrote:
> You mean besides that installing MacOS on non-apple hardware is against 
> the Service License Agreement?
> 
> http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx.html
> 
> Section 2A
> "This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple 
> Software on a single *Apple-labeled computer* at a time."

IANAL, but in English the above means that if you have more than one
Apple-labeled computer, you are only allowed by this License to have a
copy of the Apple software on one of them at a time, and only allowed by
this License to have one copy on that one Apple-labeled computer, and
does not seem to address non-Apple-labeled computers at all.  Whatever
"Apple-labeled" means in this context, since MacOS can be running and
is
now running on all sorts of PC-compatible hardware.

It may mean something else in lawyerese.  Or it may just be badly
written.

Or it may be starting from a basis of everything being prohibited, so
that rights must be explicitly added, but there are all sorts of legal
things that make any absolute anything [e.g. prohibition] not as
absolute as one might think.


-- 
/*********************************************************************\
**
** Joe Yao				jsdy@tux.org - Joseph S. D. Yao
**
\*********************************************************************/

Joseph S D Yao wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:32:03PM -0400, Andrew Chester wrote:
>   
>> You mean besides that installing MacOS on non-apple hardware is against
>> the Service License Agreement?
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx.html
>>
>> Section 2A
>> "This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple 
>> Software on a single *Apple-labeled computer* at a time."
>>     
>
>
> IANAL, but in English the above means that if you have more than one
> Apple-labeled computer, you are only allowed by this License to have a
> copy of the Apple software on one of them at a time, and only allowed by
> this License to have one copy on that one Apple-labeled computer, and
> does not seem to address non-Apple-labeled computers at all.  Whatever
> "Apple-labeled" means in this context, since MacOS can be running
and is
> now running on all sorts of PC-compatible hardware.
>
> It may mean something else in lawyerese.  Or it may just be badly
> written.
>
> Or it may be starting from a basis of everything being prohibited, so
> that rights must be explicitly added, but there are all sorts of legal
> things that make any absolute anything [e.g. prohibition] not as
> absolute as one might think.
>
>
>   
I''m not a lawyer either but Sun does have lawyers so I''d have
one of
them look into it before trying it on non-apple hardware.

Not that I''ve ever heard of apple really enforcing this, but it does 
look like Apple reserves all rights in the first section. I mean this is 
the whole reason the OSX86 project is around, or was created; then again 
I don''t know if a lawyer ever looked into it.  

"The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts 
accompanying this License whether on disk, in read only memory, on any 
other media or in any other form (collectively the "Apple Software")
are
licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. ("Apple") for use only under 
the terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly 
granted to you."

Joseph S D Yao wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:32:03PM -0400, Andrew Chester wrote:
>> You mean besides that installing MacOS on non-apple hardware is against
>> the Service License Agreement?
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx.html
>>
>> Section 2A
>> "This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple 
>> Software on a single *Apple-labeled computer* at a time."
> 
> 
> IANAL, but in English the above means that if you have more than one
> Apple-labeled computer, you are only allowed by this License to have a
> copy of the Apple software on one of them at a time, and only allowed by
> this License to have one copy on that one Apple-labeled computer, and
> does not seem to address non-Apple-labeled computers at all.  Whatever
> "Apple-labeled" means in this context, since MacOS can be running
and is
> now running on all sorts of PC-compatible hardware.
There has been some discussion over this. A while ago, Apple changed the 
license for OS X *Server* (so not plain OS X) to read:

"This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Mac OS X 
Server software (the “Mac OS X Server Software”) on a single 
Apple-labeled computer. You may also install and use other copies of Mac 
OS X Server Software on the same Apple-labeled computer, provided that 
you acquire an individual and valid license from Apple for each of these 
other copies of Mac OS X Server Software."

This could be taken to mean that you can install OS X Server under a 
virtual machine on an "Apple-labeled computer". But, who knows what it
actually means.

In any case, the machine mentioned in the original email (an Ultra 24) 
is definitely not an Apple-labeled computer, so the point is moot; it 
would be a violation of the SLA to install OS X under Xen on it.

- Frank

On 4/13/09 1:09 PM, Frank van der Linden wrote:
> In any case, the machine mentioned in the original email (an Ultra 24)
> is definitely not an Apple-labeled computer, so the point is moot; it
> would be a violation of the SLA to install OS X under Xen on it
Q1) Label pried from an old PowerPC

Q1) One tube of superglue

Q1) Ultra 24

Step one: Glue label to Ultra. Let dry.

Step two: Install OSX

Ridiculous? Yes.

Legal? That depends on which lawyer you ask, I bet. The law can be
as enigmatic and unpredictable as an elusive stack overflow bug...